Judge orders Trump to pay nearly $355 million in civil fraud trial

LOL. Trump sued over that fraudulent document/dossier. The result? Case dismissed and Trump has to pay Steele's company $382,000 in legal fees.
Trump is ordered to pay legal fees after failed lawsuit over the Steele dossier

Your uranium accusation has even less merit.

 

An attorney friend of mine today said the NY Court judgment against Trump will end up going to the Supreme Court if it isn't throw out or reduced by the appellate court. As he explained it Trump has to post the 450MM plus to be able to appeal the judgment. But there is something in the U.S. Constitution called Article 8. I've not been able to google it yet. But according to my attorney friend it was intended to protect against unreasonable, excessive fines and penalties and the judgment the NY judge has entered, when there was no evidence of damages, will end up being reduced by an appeals court or else by the Supreme Courts, NY or US. He went on to say that there is a case that Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a key voice in deciding that may ultimately save Trump's hide. He also gave me a lecture about my distrust of the Supreme Court and told me a fascinating story about Justice Barrett's friendship with Justice Sotomayor.

 

Your "attorney" friend is wrong out of the blocks. Trump does NOT have to post the appeal bond in order to appeal. He has to post the bond to stay the plaintiff's collection efforts pending appeal. If he doesn't post the bond, he can still appeal the judgment, but NY can try to enforce it. If your friend thinks there was no evidence of damages, he/she wasn't paying attention. Your mistrust of SCOTUS was very well founded. Two words for your friend on that issue...Clarence Thomas, the poster child of corrupt judges. Your friend also has his/her Articles and Amendments confused.

 

Findings of fraud and other proven acts of distrust and dishonesty does seem to rally Trumpeteers, I’ll give you that.

 

Let me say this: we all have friends like this. Your friend is either: (a) a transactional lawyer with no knowledge of how litigation works, (b) a very bad lawyer, or (c) told you some stuff that you might have understandably misunderstood.

In a nutshell, Trump can appeal, and has already given notice of his intent to appeal, regardless of bond. A bond simply: (a) stops the efforts to collect the judgment during the appeal, and (b) protects and secures the plaintiff in the event the appeal is unsuccessful (and the vast majority of appeals are unsuccessful).

The Ginsburg case that your friend is referencing is a decision that is making its way through the alt-right media. Don’t give it much attention.

Finally, while Trump’s appeal is no slam dunk, I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand either.there are some very interesting legal arguments and implications. I would not be shocked if the judgment is reversed in whole or in part.

 

In response to both of you, my friend isn't a corporate lawyer nor is he Alt-Right. He says he didn't vote for Trump in the last election and isn't sure he'll vote for Trump this time either. His concern is much more long-term. He is worried about the threat to our long-term democracy/republic and Constitution from the politicization of the civil and criminal processes. It is the 8th Amendment. He acknowledges your point about the 8th Amendment being primarily used and interpreted in criminal proceedings and focused on bail and excessive fines. However, he says the RBG case he cited is just one example of the Supreme Court struggling with historic use of the 8th Amendment and expanding it to deal with situations where a civil penalty appears motivated by "animus" or is seen as an effort to punish rather than enforce a government fine. He admits its an evolving area. His point in my original conversation was that the Trump civil matter is a long way from being over, regardless of whether Trump can post a bond. He asked me if the poster I had mentioned was bashing the U.S. Supreme Court or the judicial process in general. He said the root of his concern about the negatives of the NY case run much deeper than Trump. He belongs to a small but growing number of lawyers concerned deeply about a threat to our democracy and constitution and suggested I ask anyone who demeans either the USSC or our constitution whether they'd rather live in a third world banana republic. Trump doesn't help matters with his bluster and use of the "deep state" and constant attaching of labels "crooked". But I admire my friend and hope I've done a fair job of conveying his sincere concerns.

 

Your friend is "concerned about long-term threat to our democracy and constitution" but might vote for Donald Trump, the guy who executed a conspiracy to overturn an election, which included coercing state officials, repeated public lying, coercing his VP to violate the Constitution, and included elements of violence such as an attack on out Capitol?

He is "worried about the threat to our...civil and criminal processes...." yet might vote for a political candidate who repeatedly led public chants to lock up his opponent?

He disdains those who might "demean...the USSC" yet might cast a vote for a political party who shamelessly violated the standards of a POTUS appointing a justice, and who seems minimally concerned about the current obscene influence buying on the USSC?


Can we trust that you pointed out to your friend these unacceptable transgressions, glaring inconsistencies, and the absolutely un-American conduct that he seems to have no problems with?

 

I won’t be surprised if the amount is reduced - maybe substantially. Why - I have no idea except the current payable is so much.

 

The $355 million is based on disengorgement of ill-gotten gains. This plus 9% interest is how we get to the $450 million number. How Judge Engoron got to this number is actually simple. What years did the Trump Org engage in these frauds? And what profits arised from said fraud? That equaled $355 million.

For Trump to win appeal, he would have to either prove no fraud, which is unlikely since Engoron said the fraud leap off the pages. Prove the $355 million number is wrong somehow. Or find some other legal loophole.

The Amendment about overly high penalties shouldn't apply here. The civil case is about disengorgement. If Trump has $355 million in ill-gotten gains, then making him pay full amount plus interest isn't excessive.

 

It's rallying a majority of voters. But we know you hate the majority of voters.

 

Obviously, it's a threat to our democracy. This is banana republic type shit. Treating former heads of state in this manner, no matter which side of the aisle they're on, is a bad idea. Notice Trump did not go after the Clintons. It is something that could escalate into a civil war rather quickly. People need to wake up.

 

While I'm thinking about it, can someone remind me the last time one party tried to remove the opposition party's lead candidate from the presidential ballot for an entire state? The 9-0 rebuke from the SCOTUS illustrates how ridiculous this obsession with Trump with has become. All you are doing is validating his voter's sentiments, while adding a few more believers with each utterly stupid attempt.

 

I’ve never said that I hate Trumpeteers (assuming that’s who you wrongly claim is the “majority of voters (remember Trump has never won the popular vote)). I hate their excuse-riddled political stance. But I have friends and worse, family, that have excused their way into voting for Trump. Heck, I even have friends and family who are faithful to FSU and Ummmm.

Unlike some here, I am at times an adult fully capable of separating a passion for politics and living my life on an day-to-day basis.

 

Ask your friend whether our elected officials should be above the law, and if not, what should we do when they flaunt the law?

Ask your friend on his deep concern for the 8th amendment, whether he considered the fact that the company was dealing in billions of transactions? Ask him if a company like Apple who loses a class action lawsuit and owes $1 billion should be able to appeal without posting that bond?

I’d caution people who “learn the law” from publications like Gateway on the far right and Salon in the far left that you are doing yourself no favors. They learn nothing and need to be de-programmed at some point.

 

UM or Miami works.

 

In fairness to the states that tried to remove Trump, he is the first sitting US president to attempt a coup and the first insurrectionist to run for president. The operating procedures around that are a bit hazy.

 

While I’m thinking about it, can someone remind me the last time a dozen + of a former President’s officials have come out to say they wouldn’t vote for him?

Pence
Barr
Bolton
McMaster
Esper
Mattis
Kelly
Milley
Mulvaney
Scaramucci
Griffin
Grisham

 

Way to point out Trump is not part of the establishment. Nobody had suspected it until now. You illustrated it quite eloquently. Thank you for the contribution to our forum.

 

Trump is also so totally establishment that he appointed all of those totally establishment people. Herf.

And he's so totally deepstate that he appointed lots of totally deepstate people. Derf.

(beat ya to it on that second one )

 

Remind me, who appointed these supposedly “establishment” officials in his administration?